Mr LEE (2:01 PM) —The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has moved, as I understand it, that all the amendments will be dealt with as one item. Is that correct?

Mr SPEAKER —That is my understanding.

Mr LEE —I wish to speak on that. In moving that motion, the minister is seeking to deny to the opposition the opportunity to have a separate vote on the two matters dealt with in these amendments. The minister knows full well that there are two matters that have been pressed that are dealt with in these amendments. We have been very cooperative with the government this afternoon in dealing with the Australian Research Council bills and the education services for overseas students legislation. If the minister wants to play hard ball with the way we are going to deal with these amendments from now on, the opposition will respond in kind. I am a great believer in Newton's third law—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the minister refuses to allow the opposition the chance for separate divisions on the abolition of the EBA and holds the category 1 schools to the current levels of funding, as the day finishes and as the night progresses and we deal with this legislation, it will be the government that bears the consequences of this.

The reason I believe the amendments should be dealt with separately is that the enrolment benchmark adjustment is opposed by many Australians. The enrolment benchmark adjustment is totally unrelated to the socioeconomic status funding system that the government has introduced. Various groups might support or oppose the new SES model, and in some ways it is quite unrelated to the enrolment benchmark adjustment. The EBA was a creature of this government's 1996 budget, which decided that the government would take money away from state departments of education if there were a change in the percentage level of students attending government schools. There are many organisations that are very active lobbyists for the various private school stakeholders, and they argue very strongly that the enrolment benchmark adjustment, the unfair EBA, has done nothing but promote great tension between government and non-government schools. Many non-government school organisations oppose it, even if they happen to support the new SES index. It is for that reason that we believe there should be a separate vote on the EBA and a separate vote on holding back the category 1 schools to their existing level of funding.

Many of us on this side of the House have concerns about both the EBA and the new SES funding system, and it is for that reason that we believe members of the government should be held accountable for their position on both the EBA and the restrictions in funding for category 1 schools. I say to my colleagues the member for Rankin and the member for Reid that, if they wish to speak in this debate on the minister's motion to restrict us debating these amendments separately, I encourage them to speak for their full allocated amount of time. I intend to. Unless the government is prepared to give ground and allow a separate vote on these matters, we intend to use all of the time available to us in this debate to remind the House of this government's intentions on this legislation.

The point to make about the enrolment benchmark adjustment is that it does not work on the number of students who are attending government schools or non-government schools. The unfair EBA has already taken $60 million away from public schools across the country, even though there are 26,000 extra students at government schools. The EBA works on a percentage formula. If the percentage of students attending government and non-government schools changes, the government takes money away from state departments of education. The point is that it is an unfair change. It not only recovers money from state education departments through the per capita formula; it is a double whammy, because the government comes back a second time and through the EBA takes money away from five of the six state departments of education. Like the minister, this EBA has only one-way action. It only takes money away from public schools. In Tasmania, there has actually been an increase in the percentage of students attending government schools, but they do not get extra funding because of the EBA. The EBA, like this minister, only takes money away from public education.

It is no secret that concern about the EBA is not restricted to public advocates for public schools. The National Catholic Education Commission is one excellent example. The National Catholic Education Commission has been saying in the Senate committee process and in public statements that it supports the abolition of the EBA. If anyone other than David Kemp were Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, they would have repealed the EBA by now. If anyone other than David Kemp is Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs after Christmas, I am sure they will repeal the EBA.

Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) put: